ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT
2 September 2020 (*)
(Appeal – Intervention – Confidentiality – Information treated as confidential at first instance)
In Case C‑226/20 P,
APPEAL under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, brought on 29 May 2020,
Eurofer, European Steel Association, AISBL, established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J. Killick and G. Forwood, avocats,
appellant,
the other parties to the proceedings being:
European Commission,
defendant at first instance,
HBIS Group Serbia Iron & Steel LLC Belgrade,
intervener at first instance,
THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT,
having regard to the proposal of K. Jürimäe, Judge-Rapporteur,
after hearing the Advocate General, G. Pitruzzella,
makes the following
Order
1 By its appeal, Eurofer, European Steel Association, AISBL (‘Eurofer’) asks the Court to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 March 2020, Eurofer v Commission (T‑835/17, EU:T:2020:96), by which the General Court dismissed its action for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1795 of 5 October 2017 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia and Ukraine and terminating the investigation on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Serbia (OJ 2017 L 258, p. 24).
2 By separate document lodged at the Court Registry on 9 June 2020, Eurofer requests the Court to grant confidential treatment, vis-à-vis the intervener at first instance, in respect of certain parts of Annex A.4 to the appeal on the ground that they contain commercially sensitive information. Eurofer points out, in that regard, that that annex forms part of Annex A.31 to the application at first instance, in respect of which the General Court granted confidential treatment.
3 Article 171(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice provides that the appeal is to be served on the other parties to the relevant case before the General Court. Moreover, in accordance with Article 172 of those rules, any party to the relevant case before the General Court having an interest in the appeal being allowed or dismissed may submit a response within two months after service of the appeal on that party. It follows from those provisions that the appeal and the other procedural documents lodged before the Court of Justice are also to be served, in principle, on the parties admitted as interveners before the General Court.
4 However, where a party is requesting, vis-à-vis a party that intervened before the General Court, confidential treatment in respect of material produced before the Court of Justice which has already been treated as confidential vis-à-vis that same party in the proceedings at first instance, that same confidential treatment must, in principle, be maintained for the purposes of the proceedings before the Court of Justice (see, to that effect, order of the President of the Court of 17 March 2020, Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission, C‑666/19 P, not published, EU:C:2020:213, paragraph 6 and the case-law cited).
5 In the present case, it is apparent from paragraph 4 of the order of 5 October 2018, Eurofer v Commission (T‑835/17, not published, EU:T:2018:676), read in the light of paragraphs 15 and 17 of that order, that the President of the Eighth Chamber of the General Court granted the request for confidential treatment vis-à-vis the intervener at first instance in respect of Annex A.31 to the application at first instance.
6 Annex A.4 to Eurofer’s appeal, which is the subject of the present request for confidential treatment, corresponds to one of the annexes to the document which, taken as a whole, constituted Annex A.31 to the application at first instance.
7 It follows from the foregoing that Eurofer’s request that the Court grant confidential treatment, vis-à-vis HBIS Group Serbia Iron & Steel LLC Belgrade, in respect of the information set out in Annex A.4 to Eurofer’s appeal corresponding to the information which has already been treated as confidential and is annexed to Eurofer’s application at first instance in the case which gave rise to the judgment of the General Court of 12 March 2020, Eurofer v Commission (T‑835/17, EU:T:2020:96), must be granted, only the non-confidential version of Annex A.4 to the appeal having to be served, by the Registrar, on HBIS Group Serbia Iron & Steel LLC Belgrade.
On those grounds, the President of the Court hereby orders:
1. Confidential treatment is granted, vis-à-vis HBIS Group Serbia Iron & Steel LLC Belgrade, in respect of the information set out in Annex A.4 to Eurofer, European Steel Association, AISBL’s appeal corresponding to the information which has already been treated as confidential and is annexed to Eurofer, European Steel Association, AISBL’s application at first instance in the case which gave rise to the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 12 March 2020, Eurofer v Commission (T‑835/17, EU:T:2020:96), only the non-confidential version of Annex A.4 to the appeal having to be served, by the Registrar, on HBIS Group Serbia Iron & Steel LLC Belgrade.
2. The costs are reserved.
Luxembourg, 2 September 2020.
A. Calot Escobar | | K. Lenaerts |